A bit further down on this blog I suggested that horse racing is headed for extinction.
Mostly because humans seem increasingly unwilling to countenance any activity that puts animals in danger. Any sport in which animals can get hurt is becoming less popular by the minute. That includes hunting and fishing, certainly.
Horse racing fills the bill, as well. And we just saw a prominent death on the track, at the Kentucky Derby.
Now, just about everyone involved in the discussion has gone back to read a Wall Street Journal story that appeared the day before last Saturday’s Derby. In it, the author suggested that excessive inbreeding has led to powerful, fast — and exceedingly fragile horses.
But back to the point I wanted to make here:
The horses don’t have the officially sanctioned gambling monopoly they did a generation ago, and losing that chunk of their business is making the industry feebler and less interesting to the public.
It’s hard to imagine now, with an Indian casino within driving distance of nearly everyone in Southern California … and a batch of cities with legal card parlors … that it was illegal to place a bet in the state of California even a generation ago.
Unless you were at a race track.
I maintained then that the big crowds that used to gather at Santa Anita and Hollywood Park weren’t really horse fans. They were there to gamble. The concept of winning something for nothing being a powerful one throughout history.
Then came the California lottery, state-sponsored gambling, that is. Legalized in 1984 over the strenuous objections of the horse industry.
Soon after came the proliferation of Indian casinos and card parlors … and the track is probably one of the last places a serious gambler thinks about visiting to take care of that “gotta bet” jones.
So, yeah, just adding another “because” to my suggestion that racing horses is doomed. Gamblers don’t need the ponies anymore.
2 responses so far ↓
1 DPope // May 7, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Santa Anita Park is beautiful on Santa Anita Derby Day. It’s the dregs just about any other.
2 Kevin Modesti // May 8, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Right: Competition from other sports and gambling games is a bigger reason for horse racing’s decline in popularity than any of its intrinsic faults.
Racing was big here in California back before the arrival of the Dodgers, Lakers, Kings, etc., and before the advent of lotteries, Indian casinos, glitzy card clubs, point-spread wagering, fantasy leagues, etc.
Racing has been squeezed by competition on both the sports and gambling fronts.
And by the way: Columnists (and bloggers!) think they’re being edgy when they say things like, “the big crowds that used to gather at Santa Anita and Hollywood Park weren’t really horse fans. They were there to gamble.” But I’m not sure who such writers think they’re arguing against.
No racing fan I know would claim anybody watches races just to, say, root for a favorite barn, without a handicapping interest. Saying people go to the track not for the horses but for the betting is about as controversial as saying people go to restaurants not for the silverware but for the food.
I’ve often thought newspapers contribute to racing’s decline (and in a tiny way their own) by writing about it as if it’s a sport like golf or tennis and readers care primarily about the ups and downs of the competitors. Actually, readers mostly want insight that will help them cash bets.
A lot of gutter-level gamblers settle for lotteries and slot machines. Many others, though, think trying to pick winning horses is the best gambling game there is, rich in lore, full of challenge, high in profit potential.
It has this going for it: It’s the only sport where, if you prove yourself a really knowledgeable fan, they just might hand you stacks of money before you leave the stadium.
But that’s not enough for most gamblers and sports fans anymore. You’re right , they have a lot more choices.
Leave a Comment